Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 421

control, N = 211

treatment, N = 211

p-value2

age

42

50.80 ± 12.82 (25 - 72)

50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72)

51.27 ± 13.01 (32 - 72)

0.814

gender

42

0.317

f

29 (69%)

13 (62%)

16 (76%)

m

13 (31%)

8 (38%)

5 (24%)

occupation

42

0.978

full_time

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.5%)

homemaker

2 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

other

2 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (9.5%)

part_time

7 (17%)

4 (19%)

3 (14%)

retired

12 (29%)

6 (29%)

6 (29%)

self_employ

2 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

t_and_e

2 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

unemploy

10 (24%)

5 (24%)

5 (24%)

marital

42

>0.999

divore

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.5%)

married

7 (17%)

3 (14%)

4 (19%)

none

24 (57%)

12 (57%)

12 (57%)

seperation

3 (7.1%)

2 (9.5%)

1 (4.8%)

widow

3 (7.1%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.5%)

edu

42

0.435

bachelor

12 (29%)

5 (24%)

7 (33%)

diploma

7 (17%)

5 (24%)

2 (9.5%)

hd_ad

2 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

postgraduate

4 (9.5%)

2 (9.5%)

2 (9.5%)

primary

4 (9.5%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

secondary_1_3

2 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (9.5%)

secondary_4_5

10 (24%)

7 (33%)

3 (14%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (4.8%)

fam_income

42

0.794

10001_12000

3 (7.1%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.5%)

12001_14000

1 (2.4%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

4 (9.5%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

16001_18000

2 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.8%)

18001_20000

1 (2.4%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

8 (19%)

6 (29%)

2 (9.5%)

2001_4000

5 (12%)

2 (9.5%)

3 (14%)

4001_6000

6 (14%)

3 (14%)

3 (14%)

6001_8000

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.5%)

8001_10000

3 (7.1%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.5%)

below_2000

4 (9.5%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

medication

42

36 (86%)

17 (81%)

19 (90%)

0.663

onset_duration

42

16.91 ± 12.51 (0 - 56)

17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56)

15.91 ± 10.45 (0 - 35)

0.614

onset_age

42

33.89 ± 12.43 (15 - 62)

32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55)

35.35 ± 13.47 (15 - 62)

0.452

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 421

control, N = 211

treatment, N = 211

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

42

3.45 ± 1.27 (1 - 5)

3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5)

3.52 ± 1.25 (1 - 5)

0.721

recovery_stage_b

42

18.33 ± 2.67 (9 - 23)

18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23)

18.24 ± 2.47 (14 - 23)

0.821

ras_confidence

42

30.86 ± 4.72 (19 - 40)

30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40)

31.48 ± 4.92 (22 - 39)

0.402

ras_willingness

42

12.26 ± 2.06 (7 - 15)

12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15)

12.24 ± 2.32 (7 - 15)

0.941

ras_goal

42

17.67 ± 3.11 (12 - 24)

17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23)

17.76 ± 3.21 (12 - 24)

0.846

ras_reliance

42

13.38 ± 3.12 (8 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18)

13.52 ± 3.47 (8 - 20)

0.771

ras_domination

42

10.21 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15)

9.48 ± 2.84 (3 - 14)

0.048

symptom

42

29.79 ± 10.29 (14 - 56)

28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45)

30.71 ± 11.88 (15 - 56)

0.565

slof_work

42

22.90 ± 5.06 (10 - 30)

23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30)

22.38 ± 5.39 (10 - 30)

0.509

slof_relationship

42

26.33 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35)

25.71 ± 5.96 (11 - 35)

0.502

satisfaction

42

21.19 ± 6.95 (5 - 30)

19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29)

22.52 ± 7.10 (5 - 30)

0.218

mhc_emotional

42

11.55 ± 3.58 (4 - 18)

11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17)

11.95 ± 4.14 (4 - 18)

0.471

mhc_social

42

15.02 ± 4.82 (6 - 25)

15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25)

14.86 ± 5.19 (6 - 23)

0.826

mhc_psychological

42

22.40 ± 6.24 (6 - 36)

21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33)

23.24 ± 6.34 (6 - 36)

0.393

resilisnce

42

17.05 ± 4.72 (6 - 25)

16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24)

17.24 ± 5.08 (7 - 25)

0.797

social_provision

42

13.55 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)

13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20)

13.67 ± 3.54 (5 - 19)

0.814

els_value_living

42

17.14 ± 3.07 (5 - 23)

16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)

17.43 ± 3.80 (5 - 23)

0.553

els_life_fulfill

42

13.02 ± 3.41 (4 - 18)

12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17)

13.86 ± 3.32 (4 - 18)

0.114

els

42

30.17 ± 5.84 (9 - 40)

29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36)

31.29 ± 6.73 (9 - 40)

0.218

social_connect

42

26.81 ± 10.30 (8 - 48)

27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45)

26.57 ± 11.45 (8 - 48)

0.883

shs_agency

42

14.17 ± 4.88 (3 - 20)

13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20)

14.62 ± 5.36 (3 - 20)

0.554

shs_pathway

42

16.69 ± 3.77 (4 - 22)

16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21)

17.19 ± 4.26 (4 - 22)

0.397

shs

42

30.86 ± 8.00 (7 - 42)

29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41)

31.81 ± 8.77 (7 - 42)

0.447

esteem

42

12.55 ± 1.19 (10 - 15)

12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14)

12.43 ± 1.33 (10 - 15)

0.525

mlq_search

42

15.21 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)

15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21)

15.24 ± 3.62 (3 - 20)

0.965

mlq_presence

42

13.64 ± 4.08 (3 - 21)

14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19)

13.14 ± 4.97 (3 - 21)

0.434

mlq

42

28.86 ± 6.85 (6 - 41)

29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40)

28.38 ± 7.63 (6 - 41)

0.658

empower

42

19.95 ± 4.38 (6 - 28)

20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24)

19.81 ± 5.09 (6 - 28)

0.836

ismi_resistance

42

14.95 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19)

14.95 ± 3.38 (5 - 20)

>0.999

ismi_discrimation

42

11.21 ± 3.20 (5 - 19)

12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17)

10.43 ± 3.26 (5 - 19)

0.112

sss_affective

42

9.64 ± 4.21 (3 - 18)

9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15)

9.33 ± 4.91 (3 - 18)

0.639

sss_behavior

42

9.64 ± 4.38 (3 - 18)

10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

9.10 ± 4.56 (3 - 18)

0.425

sss_cognitive

42

7.88 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)

7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15)

8.29 ± 4.37 (3 - 18)

0.518

sss

42

27.17 ± 11.66 (9 - 54)

27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44)

26.71 ± 13.42 (9 - 54)

0.805

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.38

0.273

2.85, 3.92

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.143

0.385

-0.613, 0.898

0.713

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.197

0.465

-0.714, 1.11

0.687

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.515

0.708

-0.873, 1.90

0.494

Pseudo R square

0.025

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.4

0.586

17.3, 19.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.190

0.829

-1.82, 1.43

0.819

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.583

0.605

-1.77, 0.603

0.378

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.47

0.924

-0.339, 3.28

0.170

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.2

1.024

28.2, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.24

1.449

-1.60, 4.08

0.398

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.115

1.062

-2.20, 1.97

0.918

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.671

1.622

-2.51, 3.85

0.696

Pseudo R square

0.021

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.3

0.447

11.4, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.048

0.633

-1.29, 1.19

0.940

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.802

0.597

-1.97, 0.368

0.232

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.519

0.911

-1.27, 2.30

0.591

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.678

16.2, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.190

0.958

-1.69, 2.07

0.843

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.256

0.649

-1.53, 1.02

0.708

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.399

0.991

-1.54, 2.34

0.703

Pseudo R square

0.002

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.688

11.9, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.286

0.973

-1.62, 2.19

0.770

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.044

0.640

-1.21, 1.30

0.948

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.749

0.978

-1.17, 2.67

0.474

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_domination

(Intercept)

11.0

0.514

9.95, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.48

0.726

-2.90, -0.053

0.048

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.77

1.019

-3.76, 0.230

0.115

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.47

1.551

0.430, 6.51

0.050

Pseudo R square

0.101

symptom

(Intercept)

28.9

2.260

24.4, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.86

3.197

-4.41, 8.12

0.565

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-2.83

1.631

-6.03, 0.362

0.142

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.83

2.490

-1.05, 8.71

0.184

Pseudo R square

0.019

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.4

1.102

21.3, 25.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.05

1.559

-4.10, 2.01

0.505

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.67

0.876

-3.39, 0.049

0.115

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.56

1.338

-1.06, 4.18

0.296

Pseudo R square

0.014

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

27.0

1.277

24.4, 29.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.24

1.806

-4.78, 2.30

0.497

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-3.30

1.204

-5.66, -0.938

0.039

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

4.80

1.838

1.20, 8.41

0.045

Pseudo R square

0.027

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

1.506

16.9, 22.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.67

2.130

-1.51, 6.84

0.218

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

3.09

1.566

0.018, 6.16

0.105

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.904

2.391

-5.59, 3.78

0.721

Pseudo R square

0.049

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.1

0.765

9.64, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.810

1.082

-1.31, 2.93

0.458

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.40

1.898

-2.32, 5.12

0.501

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.79

2.868

-3.83, 7.41

0.561

Pseudo R square

0.071

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

1.153

12.9, 17.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.333

1.631

-3.53, 2.86

0.839

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

3.64

2.400

-1.07, 8.34

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-4.74

3.650

-11.9, 2.42

0.211

Pseudo R square

0.044

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

1.350

18.9, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.67

1.909

-2.08, 5.41

0.387

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.61

3.195

-3.65, 8.87

0.428

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.91

4.842

-12.4, 6.58

0.558

Pseudo R square

0.022

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.9

1.036

14.8, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.381

1.465

-2.49, 3.25

0.796

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.340

0.925

-1.47, 2.15

0.728

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.79

1.412

-5.56, -0.022

0.103

Pseudo R square

0.015

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.704

12.0, 14.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.238

0.996

-1.71, 2.19

0.812

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.171

0.609

-1.36, 1.02

0.790

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.911

0.929

-0.910, 2.73

0.372

Pseudo R square

0.006

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.674

15.5, 18.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.571

0.953

-1.30, 2.44

0.552

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.218

0.412

-1.02, 0.589

0.619

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.071

0.629

-1.30, 1.16

0.915

Pseudo R square

0.009

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.726

10.8, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.67

1.026

-0.344, 3.68

0.112

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.796

0.864

-0.899, 2.49

0.399

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.488

1.319

-3.07, 2.10

0.726

Pseudo R square

0.058

els

(Intercept)

29.0

1.264

26.6, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.24

1.787

-1.26, 5.74

0.218

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.460

1.076

-1.65, 2.57

0.686

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.553

1.642

-3.77, 2.67

0.750

Pseudo R square

0.034

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.0

2.274

22.6, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.476

3.216

-6.78, 5.83

0.883

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

4.48

1.361

1.81, 7.15

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.90

2.079

-2.17, 5.98

0.401

Pseudo R square

0.033

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

1.071

11.6, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.905

1.515

-2.07, 3.87

0.554

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.57

0.827

0.955, 4.19

0.026

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.03

1.262

-4.50, 0.448

0.169

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.2

0.815

14.6, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.00

1.152

-1.26, 3.26

0.391

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.08

0.969

-0.819, 2.98

0.316

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.345

1.479

-3.24, 2.55

0.825

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs

(Intercept)

29.9

1.751

26.5, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.90

2.476

-2.95, 6.76

0.446

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

3.55

0.885

1.81, 5.28

0.010

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.72

1.352

-5.37, -0.069

0.100

Pseudo R square

0.022

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.258

12.2, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.238

0.364

-0.952, 0.476

0.517

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.368

0.612

-0.832, 1.57

0.566

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.304

0.928

-2.12, 1.51

0.751

Pseudo R square

0.022

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.2

0.754

13.7, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.048

1.066

-2.04, 2.14

0.965

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.378

1.115

-1.81, 2.56

0.747

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.283

1.700

-3.05, 3.61

0.874

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.1

0.893

12.4, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.00

1.263

-3.48, 1.48

0.433

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.120

0.755

-1.60, 1.36

0.880

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.28

1.153

-3.54, 0.984

0.319

Pseudo R square

0.026

mlq

(Intercept)

29.3

1.505

26.4, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.952

2.128

-5.12, 3.22

0.657

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.323

1.733

-3.07, 3.72

0.859

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.950

2.645

-6.13, 4.23

0.734

Pseudo R square

0.007

empower

(Intercept)

20.1

0.960

18.2, 22.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.286

1.358

-2.95, 2.38

0.834

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.389

0.741

-1.84, 1.06

0.622

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.503

1.131

-2.72, 1.71

0.675

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

15.0

0.592

13.8, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.000

0.838

-1.64, 1.64

1.00

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.795

1.271

-3.29, 1.70

0.561

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.44

1.932

-2.35, 5.23

0.491

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.665

10.7, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.57

0.940

-3.41, 0.271

0.103

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.00

1.301

-3.55, 1.55

0.492

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.995

1.980

-2.89, 4.87

0.645

Pseudo R square

0.059

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.95

0.923

8.14, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.619

1.306

-3.18, 1.94

0.638

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.032

0.821

-1.64, 1.58

0.970

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.690

1.254

-3.15, 1.77

0.606

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.954

8.32, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.10

1.349

-3.74, 1.55

0.422

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.535

0.880

-2.26, 1.19

0.570

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.142

1.344

-2.78, 2.49

0.920

Pseudo R square

0.018

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.48

0.871

5.77, 9.18

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.810

1.231

-1.60, 3.22

0.515

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.56

1.399

-0.182, 5.30

0.129

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-4.05

2.133

-8.23, 0.135

0.118

Pseudo R square

0.036

sss

(Intercept)

27.6

2.560

22.6, 32.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.905

3.621

-8.00, 6.19

0.804

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.71

2.523

-3.23, 6.66

0.528

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-4.20

3.852

-11.8, 3.35

0.325

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.85, 3.92], t(43) = 12.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.90], t(43) = 0.37, p = 0.711; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.11], t(43) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.90])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.90], t(43) = 0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.20e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.28, 19.58], t(43) = 31.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.43], t(43) = -0.23, p = 0.818; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.60], t(43) = -0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.28], t(43) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.23, 32.25], t(43) = 29.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-1.60, 4.08], t(43) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-2.20, 1.97], t(43) = -0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-2.51, 3.85], t(43) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.41, 13.16], t(43) = 27.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.19], t(43) = -0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.37], t(43) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.30], t(43) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.24, 18.90], t(43) = 25.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.69, 2.07], t(43) = 0.20, p = 0.842; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.53, 1.02], t(43) = -0.40, p = 0.693; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.54, 2.34], t(43) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.89, 14.59], t(43) = 19.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.62, 2.19], t(43) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.30], t(43) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.17, 2.67], t(43) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.95, 11.96], t(43) = 21.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-2.90, -0.05], t(43) = -2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.19, -0.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.77, 95% CI [-3.76, 0.23], t(43) = -1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.47, 95% CI [0.43, 6.51], t(43) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 1.43, 95% CI [0.18, 2.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.43, 33.29], t(43) = 12.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.86, 95% CI [-4.41, 8.12], t(43) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.79])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.83, 95% CI [-6.03, 0.36], t(43) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.83, 95% CI [-1.05, 8.71], t(43) = 1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.85])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.27, 25.59], t(43) = 21.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-4.10, 2.01], t(43) = -0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.67, 95% CI [-3.39, 0.05], t(43) = -1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-1.06, 4.18], t(43) = 1.16, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.87])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.45, 29.46], t(43) = 21.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-4.78, 2.30], t(43) = -0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.30, 95% CI [-5.66, -0.94], t(43) = -2.74, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.00, -0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.80, 95% CI [1.20, 8.41], t(43) = 2.61, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.85, 95% CI [0.21, 1.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.90, 22.81], t(43) = 13.18, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.67, 95% CI [-1.51, 6.84], t(43) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.98])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.09, 95% CI [0.02, 6.16], t(43) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [2.63e-03, 0.89])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-5.59, 3.78], t(43) = -0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.11) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.64, 12.64], t(43) = 14.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.93], t(43) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.83])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-2.32, 5.12], t(43) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.79, 95% CI [-3.83, 7.41], t(43) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.93, 17.45], t(43) = 13.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-3.53, 2.86], t(43) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.64, 95% CI [-1.07, 8.34], t(43) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.56])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.74, 95% CI [-11.89, 2.42], t(43) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.23, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.93, 24.22], t(43) = 15.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-2.08, 5.41], t(43) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.89])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.61, 95% CI [-3.65, 8.87], t(43) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.91, 95% CI [-12.40, 6.58], t(43) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.83, 18.89], t(43) = 16.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-2.49, 3.25], t(43) = 0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.15], t(43) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.79, 95% CI [-5.56, -0.02], t(43) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.23, -4.91e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [12.05, 14.81], t(43) = 19.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.19], t(43) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.02], t(43) = -0.28, p = 0.778; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.73], t(43) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.54, 18.18], t(43) = 25.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.44], t(43) = 0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.82])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.59], t(43) = -0.53, p = 0.597; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.16], t(43) = -0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.77, 13.61], t(43) = 16.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.34, 3.68], t(43) = 1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.49], t(43) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.75])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-3.07, 2.10], t(43) = -0.37, p = 0.711; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.57, 31.52], t(43) = 22.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.24, 95% CI [-1.26, 5.74], t(43) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.65, 2.57], t(43) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-3.77, 2.67], t(43) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.47])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.59, 31.50], t(43) = 11.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-6.78, 5.83], t(43) = -0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.48, 95% CI [1.81, 7.15], t(43) = 3.29, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.18, 0.71])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-2.17, 5.98], t(43) = 0.91, p = 0.360; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.61, 15.81], t(43) = 12.80, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-2.07, 3.87], t(43) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.57, 95% CI [0.95, 4.19], t(43) = 3.11, p = 0.002; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [0.20, 0.88])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.03, 95% CI [-4.50, 0.45], t(43) = -1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.59, 17.79], t(43) = 19.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.26, 3.26], t(43) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.98], t(43) = 1.11, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.82])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-3.24, 2.55], t(43) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.47, 33.34], t(43) = 17.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-2.95, 6.76], t(43) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.55, 95% CI [1.81, 5.28], t(43) = 4.01, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.23, 0.68])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.72, 95% CI [-5.37, -0.07], t(43) = -2.01, p = 0.044; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.69, -8.85e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.23) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.16, 13.17], t(43) = 49.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.48], t(43) = -0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.57], t(43) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-2.12, 1.51], t(43) = -0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.71, 16.67], t(43) = 20.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.14], t(43) = 0.04, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.81, 2.56], t(43) = 0.34, p = 0.734; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.77])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-3.05, 3.61], t(43) = 0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.39, 15.89], t(43) = 15.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.48], t(43) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.36], t(43) = -0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.54, 0.98], t(43) = -1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.38, 32.28], t(43) = 19.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-5.12, 3.22], t(43) = -0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.72], t(43) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.56])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-6.13, 4.23], t(43) = -0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.21, 21.98], t(43) = 20.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.38], t(43) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.06], t(43) = -0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.72, 1.71], t(43) = -0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.79, 16.11], t(43) = 25.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.25e-14, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.64], t(43) = -2.69e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -5.49e-17, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-3.29, 1.70], t(43) = -0.63, p = 0.531; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-2.35, 5.23], t(43) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.70, 13.30], t(43) = 18.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.41, 0.27], t(43) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-3.55, 1.55], t(43) = -0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-2.89, 4.87], t(43) = 0.50, p = 0.615; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.14, 11.76], t(43) = 10.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-3.18, 1.94], t(43) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.58], t(43) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -7.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.77], t(43) = -0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.32, 12.06], t(43) = 10.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-3.74, 1.55], t(43) = -0.81, p = 0.417; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.26, 1.19], t(43) = -0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.78, 2.49], t(43) = -0.11, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.77, 9.18], t(43) = 8.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.60, 3.22], t(43) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.56, 95% CI [-0.18, 5.30], t(43) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.05, 95% CI [-8.23, 0.13], t(43) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.01e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.60, 32.64], t(43) = 10.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-8.00, 6.19], t(43) = -0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.71, 95% CI [-3.23, 6.66], t(43) = 0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.20, 95% CI [-11.75, 3.35], t(43) = -1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

160.608

166.284

-77.304

154.608

recovery_stage_a

random

6

164.125

175.475

-76.062

152.125

2.484

3

0.478

recovery_stage_b

null

3

229.208

234.884

-111.604

223.208

recovery_stage_b

random

6

232.298

243.649

-110.149

220.298

2.910

3

0.406

ras_confidence

null

3

282.030

287.705

-138.015

276.030

ras_confidence

random

6

287.028

298.379

-137.514

275.028

1.001

3

0.801

ras_willingness

null

3

205.609

211.284

-99.804

199.609

ras_willingness

random

6

209.320

220.671

-98.660

197.320

2.289

3

0.515

ras_goal

null

3

239.755

245.431

-116.878

233.755

ras_goal

random

6

245.459

256.810

-116.730

233.459

0.296

3

0.961

ras_reliance

null

3

242.023

247.699

-118.012

236.023

ras_reliance

random

6

246.507

257.858

-117.254

234.507

1.516

3

0.679

ras_domination

null

3

229.758

235.434

-111.879

223.758

ras_domination

random

6

228.264

239.615

-108.132

216.264

7.494

3

0.058

symptom

null

3

357.676

363.352

-175.838

351.676

symptom

random

6

359.550

370.901

-173.775

347.550

4.127

3

0.248

slof_work

null

3

288.587

294.262

-141.294

282.587

slof_work

random

6

290.526

301.877

-139.263

278.526

4.061

3

0.255

slof_relationship

null

3

308.255

313.931

-151.128

302.255

slof_relationship

random

6

307.311

318.662

-147.655

295.311

6.945

3

0.074

satisfaction

null

3

325.832

331.507

-159.916

319.832

satisfaction

random

6

324.859

336.210

-156.430

312.859

6.973

3

0.073

mhc_emotional

null

3

265.944

271.619

-129.972

259.944

mhc_emotional

random

6

269.668

281.019

-128.834

257.668

2.275

3

0.517

mhc_social

null

3

305.107

310.782

-149.553

299.107

mhc_social

random

6

308.180

319.531

-148.090

296.180

2.927

3

0.403

mhc_psychological

null

3

320.385

326.060

-157.192

314.385

mhc_psychological

random

6

325.090

336.441

-156.545

313.090

1.294

3

0.731

resilisnce

null

3

284.879

290.555

-139.440

278.879

resilisnce

random

6

286.080

297.431

-137.040

274.080

4.799

3

0.187

social_provision

null

3

243.371

249.047

-118.686

237.371

social_provision

random

6

247.793

259.144

-117.896

235.793

1.578

3

0.664

els_value_living

null

3

233.863

239.539

-113.932

227.863

els_value_living

random

6

238.600

249.951

-113.300

226.600

1.263

3

0.738

els_life_fulfill

null

3

252.667

258.343

-123.334

246.667

els_life_fulfill

random

6

255.144

266.495

-121.572

243.144

3.524

3

0.318

els

null

3

300.623

306.299

-147.312

294.623

els

random

6

304.854

316.205

-146.427

292.854

1.769

3

0.622

social_connect

null

3

362.496

368.171

-178.248

356.496

social_connect

random

6

357.525

368.876

-172.762

345.525

10.971

3

0.012

shs_agency

null

3

289.749

295.425

-141.875

283.749

shs_agency

random

6

287.317

298.668

-137.658

275.317

8.432

3

0.038

shs_pathway

null

3

263.150

268.826

-128.575

257.150

shs_pathway

random

6

266.476

277.827

-127.238

254.476

2.674

3

0.445

shs

null

3

334.786

340.462

-164.393

328.786

shs

random

6

329.540

340.891

-158.770

317.540

11.247

3

0.010

esteem

null

3

157.930

163.605

-75.965

151.930

esteem

random

6

162.722

174.073

-75.361

150.722

1.208

3

0.751

mlq_search

null

3

256.305

261.981

-125.153

250.305

mlq_search

random

6

261.893

273.244

-124.946

249.893

0.412

3

0.938

mlq_presence

null

3

268.286

273.961

-131.143

262.286

mlq_presence

random

6

270.777

282.128

-129.388

258.777

3.509

3

0.320

mlq

null

3

320.671

326.346

-157.335

314.671

mlq

random

6

326.183

337.534

-157.091

314.183

0.488

3

0.922

empower

null

3

272.326

278.001

-133.163

266.326

empower

random

6

276.579

287.930

-132.290

264.579

1.746

3

0.627

ismi_resistance

null

3

237.914

243.590

-115.957

231.914

ismi_resistance

random

6

243.119

254.470

-115.560

231.119

0.795

3

0.851

ismi_discrimation

null

3

250.538

256.213

-122.269

244.538

ismi_discrimation

random

6

253.211

264.561

-120.605

241.211

3.327

3

0.344

sss_affective

null

3

269.590

275.266

-131.795

263.590

sss_affective

random

6

274.711

286.062

-131.356

262.711

0.879

3

0.830

sss_behavior

null

3

274.157

279.832

-134.078

268.157

sss_behavior

random

6

278.447

289.798

-133.224

266.447

1.709

3

0.635

sss_cognitive

null

3

275.782

281.457

-134.891

269.782

sss_cognitive

random

6

277.083

288.434

-132.542

265.083

4.699

3

0.195

sss

null

3

371.490

377.166

-182.745

365.490

sss

random

6

376.083

387.434

-182.041

364.083

1.407

3

0.704

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

21

3.38 ± 1.25

21

3.52 ± 1.25

0.713

-0.203

recovery_stage_a

2nd

4

3.58 ± 1.04

-0.279

3

4.24 ± 1.02

-1.011

0.418

-0.934

recovery_stage_b

1st

21

18.43 ± 2.69

21

18.24 ± 2.69

0.819

0.218

recovery_stage_b

2nd

4

17.85 ± 1.61

0.667

3

19.13 ± 1.53

-1.016

0.297

-1.465

ras_confidence

1st

21

30.24 ± 4.69

21

31.48 ± 4.69

0.398

-0.806

ras_confidence

2nd

4

30.12 ± 2.83

0.075

3

32.03 ± 2.68

-0.362

0.374

-1.243

ras_willingness

1st

21

12.29 ± 2.05

21

12.24 ± 2.05

0.940

0.054

ras_willingness

2nd

4

11.48 ± 1.43

0.915

3

11.96 ± 1.38

0.322

0.665

-0.538

ras_goal

1st

21

17.57 ± 3.11

21

17.76 ± 3.11

0.843

-0.204

ras_goal

2nd

4

17.31 ± 1.80

0.274

3

17.90 ± 1.69

-0.152

0.662

-0.630

ras_reliance

1st

21

13.24 ± 3.15

21

13.52 ± 3.15

0.770

-0.310

ras_reliance

2nd

4

13.28 ± 1.81

-0.048

3

14.32 ± 1.69

-0.860

0.445

-1.123

ras_domination

1st

21

10.95 ± 2.35

21

9.48 ± 2.35

0.048

0.924

ras_domination

2nd

4

9.19 ± 2.23

1.106

3

11.18 ± 2.22

-1.065

0.259

-1.247

symptom

1st

21

28.86 ± 10.36

21

30.71 ± 10.36

0.565

-0.797

symptom

2nd

4

26.02 ± 5.40

1.216

3

31.71 ± 4.96

-0.426

0.159

-2.439

slof_work

1st

21

23.43 ± 5.05

21

22.38 ± 5.05

0.505

0.835

slof_work

2nd

4

21.76 ± 2.72

1.329

3

22.27 ± 2.52

0.088

0.799

-0.407

slof_relationship

1st

21

26.95 ± 5.85

21

25.71 ± 5.85

0.497

0.714

slof_relationship

2nd

4

23.65 ± 3.37

1.902

3

27.22 ± 3.17

-0.868

0.166

-2.056

satisfaction

1st

21

19.86 ± 6.90

21

22.52 ± 6.90

0.218

-1.177

satisfaction

2nd

4

22.95 ± 4.16

-1.363

3

24.71 ± 3.94

-0.964

0.575

-0.778

mhc_emotional

1st

21

11.14 ± 3.51

21

11.95 ± 3.51

0.458

-0.236

mhc_emotional

2nd

4

12.54 ± 4.03

-0.408

3

15.14 ± 4.06

-0.929

0.405

-0.758

mhc_social

1st

21

15.19 ± 5.28

21

14.86 ± 5.28

0.839

0.087

mhc_social

2nd

4

18.83 ± 5.23

-0.952

3

13.76 ± 5.23

0.288

0.221

1.326

mhc_psychological

1st

21

21.57 ± 6.19

21

23.24 ± 6.19

0.387

-0.305

mhc_psychological

2nd

4

24.18 ± 6.90

-0.478

3

22.94 ± 6.94

0.054

0.816

0.227

resilisnce

1st

21

16.86 ± 4.75

21

17.24 ± 4.75

0.796

-0.287

resilisnce

2nd

4

17.20 ± 2.67

-0.255

3

14.79 ± 2.50

1.843

0.233

1.812

social_provision

1st

21

13.43 ± 3.23

21

13.67 ± 3.23

0.812

-0.272

social_provision

2nd

4

13.26 ± 1.79

0.196

3

14.41 ± 1.67

-0.847

0.392

-1.315

els_value_living

1st

21

16.86 ± 3.09

21

17.43 ± 3.09

0.552

-0.975

els_value_living

2nd

4

16.64 ± 1.54

0.371

3

17.14 ± 1.40

0.492

0.656

-0.854

els_life_fulfill

1st

21

12.19 ± 3.32

21

13.86 ± 3.32

0.112

-1.323

els_life_fulfill

2nd

4

12.99 ± 2.16

-0.632

3

14.16 ± 2.07

-0.244

0.474

-0.936

els

1st

21

29.05 ± 5.79

21

31.29 ± 5.79

0.218

-1.450

els

2nd

4

29.51 ± 3.20

-0.298

3

31.19 ± 2.98

0.060

0.480

-1.092

social_connect

1st

21

27.05 ± 10.42

21

26.57 ± 10.42

0.883

0.246

social_connect

2nd

4

31.53 ± 5.17

-2.311

3

32.95 ± 4.68

-3.292

0.705

-0.735

shs_agency

1st

21

13.71 ± 4.91

21

14.62 ± 4.91

0.554

-0.765

shs_agency

2nd

4

16.29 ± 2.62

-2.177

3

15.17 ± 2.42

-0.464

0.563

0.948

shs_pathway

1st

21

16.19 ± 3.73

21

17.19 ± 3.73

0.391

-0.708

shs_pathway

2nd

4

17.27 ± 2.42

-0.765

3

17.93 ± 2.32

-0.521

0.721

-0.464

shs

1st

21

29.90 ± 8.02

21

31.81 ± 8.02

0.446

-1.514

shs

2nd

4

33.45 ± 3.85

-2.819

3

32.64 ± 3.45

-0.658

0.770

0.647

esteem

1st

21

12.67 ± 1.18

21

12.43 ± 1.18

0.517

0.227

esteem

2nd

4

13.03 ± 1.32

-0.350

3

12.49 ± 1.33

-0.061

0.596

0.517

mlq_search

1st

21

15.19 ± 3.46

21

15.24 ± 3.46

0.965

-0.029

mlq_search

2nd

4

15.57 ± 2.58

-0.229

3

15.90 ± 2.52

-0.399

0.867

-0.200

mlq_presence

1st

21

14.14 ± 4.09

21

13.14 ± 4.09

0.433

0.923

mlq_presence

2nd

4

14.02 ± 2.26

0.111

3

11.75 ± 2.10

1.289

0.181

2.101

mlq

1st

21

29.33 ± 6.90

21

28.38 ± 6.90

0.657

0.378

mlq

2nd

4

29.66 ± 4.39

-0.128

3

27.75 ± 4.19

0.249

0.568

0.755

empower

1st

21

20.10 ± 4.40

21

19.81 ± 4.40

0.834

0.269

empower

2nd

4

19.71 ± 2.35

0.367

3

18.92 ± 2.17

0.841

0.649

0.744

ismi_resistance

1st

21

14.95 ± 2.71

21

14.95 ± 2.71

1.000

0.000

ismi_resistance

2nd

4

14.16 ± 2.77

0.388

3

15.60 ± 2.77

-0.314

0.504

-0.702

ismi_discrimation

1st

21

12.00 ± 3.05

21

10.43 ± 3.05

0.102

0.774

ismi_discrimation

2nd

4

11.00 ± 2.85

0.492

3

10.42 ± 2.84

0.003

0.794

0.284

sss_affective

1st

21

9.95 ± 4.23

21

9.33 ± 4.23

0.638

0.524

sss_affective

2nd

4

9.92 ± 2.38

0.027

3

8.61 ± 2.22

0.612

0.462

1.109

sss_behavior

1st

21

10.19 ± 4.37

21

9.10 ± 4.37

0.422

0.865

sss_behavior

2nd

4

9.66 ± 2.50

0.423

3

8.42 ± 2.34

0.534

0.508

0.977

sss_cognitive

1st

21

7.48 ± 3.99

21

8.29 ± 3.99

0.514

-0.385

sss_cognitive

2nd

4

10.04 ± 3.17

-1.219

3

6.80 ± 3.11

0.707

0.199

1.541

sss

1st

21

27.62 ± 11.73

21

26.71 ± 11.73

0.804

0.249

sss

2nd

4

29.33 ± 6.90

-0.470

3

24.22 ± 6.50

0.685

0.328

1.403

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(41.83) = 0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.92)

2st

t(13.33) = 0.84, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.35)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(40.56) = -0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.48)

2st

t(18.81) = 1.07, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -1.46, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.79)

ras_confidence

1st

t(40.56) = 0.85, p = 0.398, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-1.69 to 4.16)

2st

t(18.70) = 0.91, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-2.48 to 6.30)

ras_willingness

1st

t(41.00) = -0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.23)

2st

t(14.37) = 0.44, p = 0.665, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.76)

ras_goal

1st

t(40.47) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.13)

2st

t(20.76) = 0.44, p = 0.662, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-2.18 to 3.36)

ras_reliance

1st

t(40.45) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.68 to 2.25)

2st

t(21.56) = 0.78, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.80)

ras_domination

1st

t(42.75) = -2.03, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-2.94 to -0.01)

2st

t(15.34) = 1.17, p = 0.259, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (-1.62 to 5.61)

symptom

1st

t(40.26) = 0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-4.60 to 8.32)

2st

t(30.37) = 1.44, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -2.44, 95% CI (-2.35 to 13.72)

slof_work

1st

t(40.32) = -0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-4.20 to 2.10)

2st

t(26.78) = 0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-3.58 to 4.60)

slof_relationship

1st

t(40.46) = -0.69, p = 0.497, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-4.89 to 2.41)

2st

t(21.20) = 1.43, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -2.06, 95% CI (-1.60 to 8.73)

satisfaction

1st

t(40.57) = 1.25, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -1.18, 95% CI (-1.64 to 6.97)

2st

t(18.64) = 0.57, p = 0.575, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-4.70 to 8.23)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(44.98) = 0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.99)

2st

t(44.16) = 0.84, p = 0.405, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-3.63 to 8.82)

mhc_social

1st

t(43.15) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-3.62 to 2.95)

2st

t(17.04) = -1.27, p = 0.221, Cohen d = 1.33, 95% CI (-13.50 to 3.36)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(44.53) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.18 to 5.51)

2st

t(31.27) = -0.23, p = 0.816, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-12.01 to 9.54)

resilisnce

1st

t(40.41) = 0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.58 to 3.34)

2st

t(22.85) = -1.23, p = 0.233, Cohen d = 1.81, 95% CI (-6.48 to 1.66)

social_provision

1st

t(40.38) = 0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.25)

2st

t(23.89) = 0.87, p = 0.392, Cohen d = -1.32, 95% CI (-1.57 to 3.87)

els_value_living

1st

t(40.18) = 0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.50)

2st

t(36.47) = 0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.76)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(40.77) = 1.62, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -1.32, 95% CI (-0.41 to 3.74)

2st

t(15.92) = 0.73, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-2.23 to 4.59)

els

1st

t(40.37) = 1.25, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -1.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to 5.85)

2st

t(24.39) = 0.72, p = 0.480, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-3.16 to 6.53)

social_connect

1st

t(40.18) = -0.15, p = 0.883, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-6.97 to 6.02)

2st

t(37.15) = 0.38, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-6.16 to 9.01)

shs_agency

1st

t(40.30) = 0.60, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-2.16 to 3.97)

2st

t(27.87) = -0.59, p = 0.563, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-5.04 to 2.80)

shs_pathway

1st

t(40.77) = 0.87, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-1.33 to 3.33)

2st

t(15.95) = 0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-3.17 to 4.48)

shs

1st

t(40.12) = 0.77, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -1.51, 95% CI (-3.10 to 6.91)

2st

t(41.80) = -0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-6.40 to 4.78)

esteem

1st

t(44.58) = -0.65, p = 0.517, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.50)

2st

t(32.33) = -0.54, p = 0.596, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.52)

mlq_search

1st

t(41.27) = 0.04, p = 0.965, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.11 to 2.20)

2st

t(13.52) = 0.17, p = 0.867, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-3.85 to 4.51)

mlq_presence

1st

t(40.36) = -0.79, p = 0.433, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-3.55 to 1.55)

2st

t(24.62) = -1.38, p = 0.181, Cohen d = 2.10, 95% CI (-5.69 to 1.13)

mlq

1st

t(40.71) = -0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-5.25 to 3.35)

2st

t(16.51) = -0.58, p = 0.568, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-8.81 to 5.01)

empower

1st

t(40.30) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.03 to 2.46)

2st

t(27.86) = -0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.30 to 2.72)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(43.44) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.69 to 1.69)

2st

t(18.68) = 0.68, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-2.99 to 5.87)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(42.64) = -1.67, p = 0.102, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-3.47 to 0.33)

2st

t(14.98) = -0.27, p = 0.794, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-5.21 to 4.05)

sss_affective

1st

t(40.40) = -0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-3.26 to 2.02)

2st

t(22.95) = -0.75, p = 0.462, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.93 to 2.31)

sss_behavior

1st

t(40.44) = -0.81, p = 0.422, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-3.82 to 1.63)

2st

t(21.84) = -0.67, p = 0.508, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-5.05 to 2.58)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(41.57) = 0.66, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.68 to 3.29)

2st

t(13.24) = -1.35, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 1.54, 95% CI (-8.40 to 1.92)

sss

1st

t(40.50) = -0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-8.22 to 6.41)

2st

t(19.98) = -1.00, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-15.74 to 5.52)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(7.16) = 1.25, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.63 to 2.05)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(5.52) = 1.25, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.67)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(5.53) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.57 to 3.68)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(6.00) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.03 to 1.46)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(5.44) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.05)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(5.41) = 1.06, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.68)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(9.05) = 1.34, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-1.18 to 4.58)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(5.23) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-3.83 to 5.81)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(5.29) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.48)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(5.42) = 1.07, p = 0.664, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-2.04 to 5.05)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(5.53) = 1.18, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-2.42 to 6.79)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(31.38) = 1.30, p = 0.408, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-1.82 to 8.19)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(10.22) = -0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-7.83 to 5.63)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(19.05) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-8.94 to 8.35)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(5.37) = -2.26, p = 0.139, Cohen d = 1.84, 95% CI (-5.18 to 0.28)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = 1.04, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.06 to 2.54)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(5.16) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.93)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(5.74) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.23 to 2.84)

els

1st vs 2st

t(5.33) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.27 to 3.08)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(5.15) = 4.04, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -3.29, 95% CI (2.35 to 10.41)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(5.27) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.99)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(5.74) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.58)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(5.11) = 0.81, p = 0.913, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.45)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(19.76) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.72)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(6.35) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-2.58 to 3.90)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(5.33) = -1.58, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 1.29, 95% CI (-3.63 to 0.83)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(5.68) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-5.71 to 4.46)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(5.27) = -1.03, p = 0.694, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-3.08 to 1.30)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(11.27) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.90 to 4.19)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(8.78) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-3.69 to 3.68)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(5.37) = -0.75, p = 0.968, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-3.15 to 1.70)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(5.40) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-3.27 to 1.92)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(6.76) = -0.87, p = 0.824, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-5.53 to 2.56)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(5.47) = -0.84, p = 0.871, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-9.92 to 4.94)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(7.00) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.36)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(5.49) = -0.94, p = 0.769, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.96)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(5.50) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.83 to 2.60)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(5.94) = -1.30, p = 0.484, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.71)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(5.41) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.40)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(5.38) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.68)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(8.70) = -1.60, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.28 to 0.75)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(5.22) = -1.72, p = 0.286, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-7.01 to 1.34)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(5.27) = -1.88, p = 0.231, Cohen d = 1.33, 95% CI (-3.91 to 0.58)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(5.40) = -2.70, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 1.90, 95% CI (-6.38 to -0.22)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(5.50) = 1.93, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -1.36, 95% CI (-0.91 to 7.09)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(27.50) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-3.00 to 5.79)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(9.73) = 1.38, p = 0.394, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (-2.24 to 9.52)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(17.22) = 0.73, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-4.96 to 10.18)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.70)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(5.32) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.39)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(5.15) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.84)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(5.70) = 0.90, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.00)

els

1st vs 2st

t(5.31) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.29 to 3.21)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(5.15) = 3.27, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -2.31, 95% CI (0.99 to 7.97)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(5.25) = 3.08, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -2.18, 95% CI (0.46 to 4.69)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(5.69) = 1.09, p = 0.643, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-1.39 to 3.55)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(5.10) = 3.99, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -2.82, 95% CI (1.27 to 5.82)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(17.80) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.82)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(6.26) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.44 to 3.20)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(5.31) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 1.81)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(5.64) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-4.09 to 4.74)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(5.25) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(10.65) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-3.89 to 2.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(8.46) = -0.71, p = 0.993, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-4.22 to 2.22)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(5.35) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.13 to 2.07)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(5.38) = -0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.79 to 1.72)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(6.63) = 1.74, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -1.22, 95% CI (-0.96 to 6.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(5.44) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-4.73 to 8.16)

Plot

Clinical significance